1. Mishnah, Ketuvot, 4.2, 5.1, 5.7, 7.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Ketubah • ketubah • ketubbah • matrimony, ketubbah
Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 44; Katzoff (2019), On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies. 9, 32, 49, 60, 96, 97, 144; Libson (2018), Law and self-knowledge in the Talmud, 166; Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 145, 172; Rosen-Zvi (2012), The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash, 41
sup>
5.7 הַמּוֹרֶדֶת עַל בַּעְלָהּ, פּוֹחֲתִין לָהּ מִכְּתֻבָּתָהּ שִׁבְעָה דִינָרִין בַּשַּׁבָּת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שִׁבְעָה טַרְפְּעִיקִין. עַד מָתַי הוּא פוֹחֵת, עַד כְּנֶגֶד כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם הוּא פוֹחֵת וְהוֹלֵךְ, שֶׁמָּא תִפּוֹל לָהּ יְרֻשָּׁה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, גּוֹבֶה הֵימֶנָּה. וְכֵן הַמּוֹרֵד עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ, מוֹסִיפִין לָהּ עַל כְּתֻבָּתָהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה דִינָרִין בַּשַּׁבָּת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שְׁלֹשָׁה טַרְפְּעִיקִין:
7.5 הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תֵלֵךְ לְבֵית הָאֵבֶל אוֹ לְבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנּוֹעֵל בְּפָנֶיהָ. וְאִם הָיָה טוֹעֵן מִשּׁוּם דָּבָר אַחֵר, רַשָּׁאי. אָמַר לָהּ, עַל מְנָת שֶׁתֹּאמְרִי לִפְלוֹנִי מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְתְּ לִי אוֹ מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְתִּי לָךְ, אוֹ שֶׁתְּהֵא מְמַלְּאָה וּמְעָרָה לָאַשְׁפָּה, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה:' ' None | sup>
5.7 If a wife rebels against her husband her ketubah is reduced by seven denarii a week. Rabbi Judah says: seven tropaics. How long does he continue to reduce? Until the amount of her ketubah. Rabbi Yose says: he may continue to reduce, and if she receives an inheritance he may collect from it. Similarly, if a husband rebels against his wife, an addition of three denarii a week is made to her ketubah. Rabbi Judah said: three tropaics.
7.5 If a man forbade his wife by vow from visiting a house of mourning or a house of feasting, he must divorce her and give her the ketubah, because he has closed peoples doors against her. If he claims that his vow was due to some other cause he is permitted to forbid her. If he said to her: “There shall be no prohibition provided you tell so-and-so what you have told me” or “what I have told you” or “that you will fill and pour out in the garbage”, he must divorce her and give her the ketubah.' ' None |
|
2. Tosefta, Ketuvot, 4.8-4.9 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Ketubah • betrothal, ketubbah • ketubah • ketubbah • matrimony, ketubbah
Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 119; Katzoff (2019), On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies. 26, 296, 309; Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 138, 142; Rosen-Zvi (2012), The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash, 99
sup>
4.8 מצוה לזון את הבנות ואין צריך לומר את הבנים ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר חובה לזון את הבנות." '4.9 דרש הלל הזקן לשון הדיוט כשהיו בני אלכסנדריא מקדשין נשים אחד בא וחוטפה מן השוק ובא מעשה לפני חכמים בקשו לעשות בניהן ממזרין אמר להם הלל הזקן הוציאו לי כתובת אמותיכן הוציאו לו וכתוב בה משתכנסי לביתי תיהוי לי לאנתו כדת משה וישראל.'" None | sup>
4.8 Ideally, one should feed his daughters, and it is not necessary to say also his sons. Rabbi Yoha ben Berokah says: It is required to feed daughters. 4.9 Hillel the Elder would explain lay-language of contracts as if it were the biblical text. When the people of Alexandria would betroth wives, another would come and seize her from the street. The matter came to the Sages. They sought to make their children bastards since the betrothal was valid, so when they are married to others in the meantime their children will be illegitimate. Hillel the Elder said to them: \\"Bring to me the ketubah of your mothers.\\" They brought them for him, and it was written in it \\"When you enter my house, you will be my wife according to the law of Moshe and Yisrael\\" in other words, based on a fine reading of the ketubah text, the betrothal only takes full effect when she enters his house, which means that the other husband was not illegitimate and her children aren\'t bastards.'' None |
|
3. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Ketubah • ketubah
Found in books: Eliav (2023), A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean, 144; Rosen-Zvi (2012), The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash, 41
|
4. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • betrothal, ketubbah • ketubbah • matrimony, ketubbah
Found in books: Katzoff (2019), On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies. 26, 296; Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 138
104a איבעי לך לאתויי בדוולא,אמר רב פפא הני תרתי מתניתא קמייתא משכחת לה בין בחכרנותא בין בקבלנותא מכאן ואילך דאיתא בקבלנותא ליתא בחכרנותא ודאיתא בחכרנותא ליתא בקבלנותא:,אם אמר לו חכור לי שדה בית השלחין זה וכו\': ואמאי לימא ליה שמא בעלמא אמרי לך מי לא תניא האומר לחבירו בית כור עפר אני מוכר לך אע"פ שאין בו אלא לתך הגיעו שלא מכר לו אלא שמא והוא דמתקרי בית כור,כרמא אני מוכר לך אע"פ שאין בו גפנים הגיעו שלא מכר לו אלא שמא והוא דמתקרי כרמא פרדס אני מוכר לך אע"פ שאין בו רמונים הגיעו שלא מכר לו אלא שמא והוא דמתקרי פרדסא אלמא אמר ליה שמא בעלמא אמרי לך הכא נמי נימא ליה שמא בעלמא אמרי לך,אמר שמואל לא קשיא הא דאמר ליה מחכיר לחוכר הא דאמר ליה חוכר למחכיר אמר ליה מחכיר לחוכר שמא בעלמא א"ל א"ל חוכר למחכיר קפידא,רבינא אמר אידי ואידי דא"ל מחכיר לחוכר מדקאמר זה מכלל דקאי בגוה עסקינן בית השלחין למה ליה למימר דקאמר ליה בית השלחין כדקיימא השתא:,| 104a You should have brought water in a bucket.,Rav Pappa said: With regard to these first two mishnayot, you find that they are correct, concerning both tecy, where the tet farmer gives a certain amount of produce to the owner and keeps the rest, as well as the case of a contractor, who gives a set proportion, e.g., one-quarter or one-third, of the yield to the owner, and keeps the rest. From this point forward, i.e., from the third mishna of the chapter until its end, that which is relevant to the case of a contractor is not applicable to tecy, and that which is relevant to tecy is not applicable to the case of a contractor.,§ The mishna teaches: If the cultivator said to the landowner explicitly: Lease me this irrigated field, or he said: Lease me this field with trees, and the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he may subtract from the produce he owes as part of his tecy. The Gemara asks: But why is this so? Let the owner say to him: I told you only the name, i.e., the type, of the field, but this does not mean it would actually be irrigated during the time you are cultivating it. Isn’t it taught in a baraita: In the case of one who says to another: I am selling you a beit kor field of dirt, although the field contains only a half-kor, once the buyer purchases the dirt it has come to him, i.e., he may not retract from the transaction, as the seller sold him the dirt only by the name, and he did not mean that its size was precisely a beit kor. The baraita adds: And this is the halakha only where that field is called by people a beit kor.,The baraita continues: Similarly, if he said: I am selling you a vineyard, then although it does not have vines, once he purchases the land it has come to him, as the seller sold him the field only by the name; and this is the halakha only where it is called a vineyard. Likewise, if he said: I am selling you an orchard, then even though it does not have pomegranates, once he purchases the land it has come to him, as he sold him only by the name; and again this is the case only where it is called an orchard. Apparently, the seller can say to him: I told you only the name. So too here, let the seller say to him: I told you only the name.,Shmuel said: It is not difficult; this baraita is comparable to a case where the owner of the land said to the tet farmer what he was leasing him, while in that mishna the tet farmer said to the owner of the land what he was leasing from him. The reason for the difference is that if the owner of the land said the terms to the tet farmer, then he can claim that he told him only the name, and the tet farmer cannot object. But if the tet farmer said the terms to the owner of the land, then he was clearly particular to receive a field that would be irrigated when he cultivated it.,Ravina said: Both this baraita and that mishna are referring to a case where the owner of the land told the tet farmer what he was leasing him, as implied by the mishna, but since the owner said: This irrigated field, by inference we are dealing with one who is standing inside it. Why, then, does the owner need to state the fact that it is an irrigated field? It is obvious simply from looking at it that it is irrigated. Rather, the owner must have said to him by way of emphasis that he is providing an irrigated field as it currently stands.,one who receives a field from another as a contractor and then lets it lie fallow and does not work the land at all, the court appraises it by evaluating how much it was able to produce if cultivated, and he gives his share of this amount to the owner. The reason is that this is what a cultivator writes to the owner in a standard contract: If I let the field lie fallow and do not cultivate it, I will pay with best-quality produce.,Rabbi Meir would expound common language used in legal documents written by ordinary Jews to deduce halakhic conclusions. Although these formulations were not prescribed by the Sages, one can nevertheless infer halakhot from them if they are used in legal documents. As it is taught in a baraita that presents a similar case to the mishna: Rabbi Meir says he is liable to pay, as the document states: If I let the field lie fallow and do not cultivate it, I will pay with best-quality produce.,Likewise, Rabbi Yehuda would also expound common language, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: In a case where a woman who has given birth is commanded to bring the offering of a childbearing woman and her husband is sufficiently wealthy, a person brings the offering of the rich on behalf of his wife. This is so even if his wife does not possess money of her own and perhaps should have been considered poor. Similarly, he may bring every offering that she is obligated to bring, such as a sin offering or guilt offering. He pays for all these offerings because this is what he writes to her in her marriage contract: I accept upon myself to repay you for all obligations that you have, even those from beforehand. Consequently, he must fund all of her offerings.,Similarly, Hillel the Elder would expound common language as well, as it is taught in a baraita: The inhabitants of Alexandria would betroth their wives a significant amount of time before the wedding, as was customary in those days, and at the time of their entry to the wedding canopy, others would come and snatch the women from their husbands. The Sages consequently sought to establish the children of these women as mamzerim. This is because with regard to sexual intercourse with other men, a betrothed woman has the status of a married woman. Consequently, if she is taken by another man, her children fathered by that man are mamzerim, just like children of a married woman who were fathered by a man other than her husband.,Hillel the Elder said to the children who came before him for a ruling on their status: Bring me your mother’s marriage contract for examination. They brought him their mother’s marriage contract, and he found that the following formulation was written in it: When you will enter the wedding canopy, be for me a wife. This shows that the marriage would not take effect at the time of her betrothal, but only after she would enter the wedding canopy. Consequently, the marriage did not occur at all, as she never entered the wedding canopy, and therefore these women did not cause their children to be mamzerim by engaging in intercourse with the other man.,The Gemara adds: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa would also expound common language. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: One who lends money to another may not take more collateral from him than the value of his debt, as this is what the debtor writes to the creditor if the creditor temporarily returns a deposit for the debtor’s use: The payment to which you have a right, which it is upon me to pay, corresponds to the entire value of this item, indicating that the item cannot be greater in value than the debt itself.,The Gemara infers: The reason the creditor acquires the collateral is that he wrote this to him. But if the creditor did not write this to the debtor, would the creditor not acquire the collateral? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥa say: If a creditor took collateral from the debtor and returned the collateral to him and then the debtor died, the creditor removes the collateral from the debtor’s children. The reason for this is that although movable property of orphans is not acquired by their father’s creditor, the collateral is considered to belong to the creditor, and he can collect the debt from it.'' None | |
|
5. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • ketubah • ketubbah • matrimony, ketubbah
Found in books: Katzoff (2019), On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies. 9; Libson (2018), Law and self-knowledge in the Talmud, 170; Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 145, 172
| 63b אלא למאן דאמר ממלאכה חולה בת מלאכה היא אלא מתשמיש כולי עלמא לא פליגי דהויא מורדת כי פליגי ממלאכה מר סבר ממלאכה לא הויא מורדת ומר סבר ממלאכה נמי הויא מורדת:,גופא המורדת על בעלה פוחתין לה מכתובתה שבעה דינרים בשבת רבי יהודה אומר שבעה טרפעיקין רבותינו חזרו ונמנו שיהו מכריזין עליה ארבע שבתות זו אחר זו ושולחין לה ב"ד הוי יודעת שאפי\' כתובתיך מאה מנה הפסדת אחת לי ארוסה ונשואה אפילו נדה אפי\' חולה ואפי\' שומרת יבם,אמר ליה ר\' חייא בר יוסף לשמואל נדה בת תשמיש היא אמר ליה אינו דומה מי שיש לו פת בסלו למי שאין לו פת בסלו,אמר רמי בר חמא אין מכריזין עליה אלא בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות אמר רבא דיקא נמי דקתני ארבע שבתות זו אחר זו ש"מ אמר רמי בר חמא פעמים שולחין לה מבית דין אחת קודם הכרזה ואחת לאחר הכרזה,דרש רב נחמן בר רב חסדא הלכה כרבותינו אמר רבא האי בורכא אמר ליה רב נחמן בר יצחק מאי בורכתיה אנא אמריתה ניהליה ומשמיה דגברא רבה אמריתה ניהליה ומנו רבי יוסי בר\' חנינא,ואיהו כמאן סבר כי הא דאתמר רבא אמר רב ששת הלכה נמלכין בה רב הונא בר יהודה אמר רב ששת הלכה אין נמלכין בה,היכי דמיא מורדת אמר אמימר דאמרה בעינא ליה ומצערנא ליה אבל אמרה מאיס עלי לא כייפינן לה מר זוטרא אמר כייפינן לה,הוה עובדא ואכפה מר זוטרא ונפק מיניה רבי חנינא מסורא ולא היא התם סייעתא דשמיא הוה,כלתיה דרב זביד אימרדא הוה תפיסא חד שירא יתיב אמימר ומר זוטרא ורב אשי ויתיב רב גמדא גבייהו יתבי וקאמרי מרדה הפסידה בלאותיה קיימין אמר להו רב גמדא משום דרב זביד גברא רבה מחניפיתו ליה והאמר רב כהנא מיבעיא בעי רבא ולא פשיט איכא דאמרי יתבי וקאמרי מרדה לא הפסידה בלאותיה קיימין אמר להו רב גמדא' ' None | 63b However, according to the one who says the rebellion is against performing tasks, is an ill woman fit to perform tasks? Since she is ill, she has no obligation to perform tasks and this is not deemed rebellious behavior. Rather, one must explain this as follows: If she rebelled against engaging in marital relations, everyone agrees that she is defined as a rebellious woman. They disagree with regard to one who rebels against performing tasks. One Sage, Rav Huna, holds that one who rebels against performing tasks is not a rebellious woman, and one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, holds that one who rebels against performing tasks is also considered a rebellious woman.,§ With regard to the matter itself: A woman who rebels against her husband is fined; we reduce her marriage contract by seven dinars each week, and Rabbi Yehuda says: Seven terapa’ikin. Our Sages went back and were counted again, meaning they voted and decided that instead of deducting a small amount from her marriage contract each week, they would make public announcements about her for four consecutive Shabbatot. And they decided that the court would send messengers to her to inform her: Be aware that even if your marriage contract is worth ten thousand dinars, you will lose it all if you continue your rebellion. If she does not retract her rebellion, she forfeits her entire marriage contract. With regard to this enactment, it is the same to me, meaning the halakha does not change, if she is a betrothed woman or a married woman, and even if she is a menstruating woman, and even if she is ill, and even if she is a widow awaiting her yavam to perform levirate marriage.,Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef said to Shmuel: Is a menstruating woman fit to engage in conjugal relations? He said to him: One who has bread in his basket, i.e., one who knows that he will be able to engage in relations with his wife after her period of menstrual impurity ends, is not comparable to one who does not have bread in his basket.,Rami bar Ḥama said: We make announcements about her only in synagogues and study halls, but not in the street. Rava said: The language of the baraita is also precise, as it teaches: They would make announcements on four consecutive Shabbatot, which are days when no labor is performed and people are not to be found in the streets, but rather in synagogues and study halls. The Gemara summarizes: Conclude from this that this is the case. Rami bar Ḥama said: The court sends people to talk with her twice, once before the announcement and once after the announcement.,Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda taught with regard to this: The halakha is in accordance with the decision of our Sages. Rava said: This is an absurdity burkha. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: What is absurd about this? I said this to him, and I said it to him in the name of a great man. And who is the great man who ruled this way? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina.,The Gemara asks: And in accordance with whose opinion does Rava hold? The Gemara answers: In accordance with that which was stated: Rava said that Rav Sheshet said: The halakha is that she is consulted in an attempt to convince her to retract her decision, and while doing so deductions are made from her marriage contract. But Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rav Sheshet said: The halakha is that we do not consult with her. According to both versions of Rav Sheshet’s ruling, she does not lose her marriage contract immediately but rather it is reduced every week. This is the source for Rava’s opinion.,§ With regard to this halakha, the Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which the halakha of a rebellious woman applies? Ameimar said: The case is where she says: I want to be married to him, but I am currently refusing him because I want to cause him anguish due to a dispute between us. However, if she said: I am disgusted with him, we do not compel her to remain with him, as one should not be compelled to live with someone who disgusts her. Mar Zutra said: We do compel her to stay with him.,It is related: There was an incident in which a woman rebelled, claiming that she was disgusted with her husband, and Mar Zutra compelled her to stay with him. And from this couple issued Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura. This demonstrates that even such coercion can cause a blessing. However, the Gemara concludes: That is not so. That case should not serve as a precedent, as there the positive outcome was due to heavenly assistance. Ordinarily, nothing good results from conjugal relations that the wife does not desire.,It is related that the daughter-in-law of Rav Zevid rebelled against her husband. She was holding a certain garment in her hands. Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi were sitting, and Rav Gamda was sitting with them. They sat and said: If a woman rebelled, she lost her right to her worn clothes, meaning she has forfeited the clothes she brought with her for her dowry even if they are still in existence. Rav Gamda said to them: Because Rav Zevid is a great man, are you willing to flatter him with regard to this halakha? Didn’t Rav Kahana say: Rava raises a dilemma about this issue with regard to worn clothes, and he did not resolve it? Yet you reached a decision out of respect for Rav Zevid. This is inappropriate. There are those who say that this incident happened differently, as these three Sages sat and said: If she rebelled, she did not lose her right to her worn clothes. Rav Gamda said to them:' ' None |
|
6. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • ketubah • matrimony, ketubbah
Found in books: Monnickendam (2020), Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, 142; Rosen-Zvi (2012), The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash, 126
| 26a מעוברת חבירו ומינקת חבירו לא שותות ולא נוטלות כתובה דברי ר\' מאיר,שהיה רבי מאיר אומר לא ישא אדם מעוברת חבירו ומינקת חבירו ואם נשא יוציא ולא יחזיר עולמית וחכמים אומרים יוציא וכשיגיע זמנו לכנוס יכנוס,והרובא שנשא עקרה וזקינה ואין לו אשה ובנים מעיקרא לא שותה ולא נוטלת כתובה ר\' אלעזר אומר יכול הוא לישא אחרת ולפרות ולרבות הימנה,אבל המקנא לארוסתו ולשומרת יבם שלו ומשכנסה נסתרה או שותה או לא נוטלת כתובה מעוברת ומינקת עצמו או שותה או לא נוטלת כתובתה הרובא שנשא עקרה וזקינה ויש לו אשה ובנים או שותה או לא נוטלת כתובה,אשת ממזר לממזר ואשת נתין לנתין ואשת גר ועבד משוחרר ואיילונית או שותה או לא נוטלת כתובה קתני מיהא איילונית תיובתיה דרב נחמן,אמר לך רב נחמן תנאי היא ואנא דאמרי כי האי תנא דתניא ר\' שמעון בן אלעזר אומר איילונית לא שותה ולא נוטלת כתובה שנאמר (במדבר ה, כח) ונקתה ונזרעה זרע מי שדרכה להזריע יצאתה זו שאין דרכה להזריע,ורבנן האי ונקתה ונזרעה זרע מאי עבדי ליה מיבעי להו לכדתניא ונקתה ונזרעה זרע שאם היתה עקרה נפקדת דברי ר\' עקיבא אמר לו ר\' ישמעאל אם כן יסתרו כל העקרות ויפקדו וזו הואיל ולא נסתרה הפסידה,אם כן מה תלמוד לומר ונקתה ונזרעה זרע שאם היתה יולדת בצער יולדת בריוח נקבות יולדת זכרים קצרים יולדת ארוכים שחורים יולדת לבנים,אשת ממזר לממזר פשיטא מהו דתימא אפושי פסולין לא ליפוש קא משמע לן,אשת גר ועבד משוחרר ואיילונית פשיטא,מהו דתימא (במדבר ה, ו) דבר אל בני ישראל ולא גרים קמ"ל ואימא הכי נמי ואמרת רבויא הוא,אשת כהן שותה כו\' (אשת כהן. שותה) פשיטא מהו דתימא (במדבר ה, יג) והיא לא נתפשה אסורה הא נתפשה מותרת וזו הואיל ונתפשה אסורה אימא לא תשתה קא משמע לן,ומותרת לבעלה פשיטא אמר רב הונא במתנוונה מתנוונה הא בדקוה מיא,במתנוונה דרך אברים מהו דתימא הא זנויי זנאי והא דלא בדקוה מיא כי אורחיה משום דבאונס זנאי ולגבי כהן אסירא קא משמע לן,אשת סריס שותה פשיטא מהו דתימא מבלעדי אישך אמר רחמנא והאי לאו בר הכי הוא קא משמע לן,על ידי כל עריות מקנין פשיטא'' None | 26a The baraita continues: A woman who was pregt with the child of another man at the time of her marriage and a woman who was nursing the child of another man at the time of her marriage neither drink the bitter water nor collect payment of their marriage contracts, as their marriages were prohibited by rabbinic law. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.,The baraita continues: The reason for this is as Rabbi Meir would say: A man may not marry a woman who is pregt with the child of another man or a woman who is nursing the child of another man, until twenty-four months pass after the baby’s birth, so as to ensure that the woman will not become pregt while the child needs to nurse. And if he married her, he must divorce her and may never remarry her, as the Sages penalized him for transgressing the prohibition. And the Rabbis say: He must divorce her, and when his time to marry her arrives, i.e., twenty-four months after the baby’s birth, he can marry her again.,The baraita continues: In the case of a young man who married a barren woman or an elderly woman, and he did not have a wife and children beforehand, the woman neither drinks nor collects payment of her marriage contract, as it is prohibited for him to marry a woman with whom he cannot procreate. Rabbi Elazar says: This marriage is not forbidden, as he can marry another woman and procreate through her, and therefore she can drink the bitter water.,The baraita continues: However, in the case of one who issued a warning to his betrothed, or to his yevama while she was a widow awaiting her yavam, and she secluded herself with the other man after he consummated the marriage, she either drinks the bitter water or does not collect payment of her marriage contract. If his own pregt or nursing wife becomes a sota, then despite the concern that the bitter water may harm the fetus, she either drinks the bitter water or does not collect payment of her marriage contract. In the case of a young man who married a barren woman or an elderly woman, and he already had a wife and children and was therefore permitted to marry his barren or elderly wife, the woman either drinks the bitter water or does not collect payment of her marriage contract.,The baraita concludes: With regard to the wife of a mamzer who is married to a mamzer in a permitted marriage, and the wife of a Gibeonite who is married to a Gibeonite in a permitted marriage, and the wife of a convert or an emancipated slave, and a sexually underdeveloped woman, if any of these women becomes a sota she either drinks the bitter water or does not collect payment of her marriage contract, as the marriage is permitted. After citing the entire baraita, the Gemara explains the difficulty: In any event, the baraita teaches that a sexually underdeveloped woman can drink the bitter water if the marriage is permitted, and this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Naḥman.,The Gemara answers: Rav Naḥman could have said to you: There is a dispute between tanna’im with regard to this matter, and I state my opinion in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon Ben Elazar says: A sexually underdeveloped woman neither drinks nor collects payment of her marriage contract, as it is stated: “And she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed” (Numbers 5:28), indicating that the sota ritual pertains only to one whose way is to bear seed and give birth, excluding this sexually underdeveloped woman, whose way is not to bear seed.,The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, what do they do with this verse: “And she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed”? Since they hold that a sexually underdeveloped woman drinks the bitter water, what do they derive from the verse? The Gemara answers: They require it for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse: “And she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed” (Numbers 5:28), indicates that if she was barren, she will be remembered and conceive a child; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: If so, all the barren women will seclude themselves with other men, and they will be remembered and conceive after drinking the bitter water and being found innocent; but that virtuous barren woman, who does not transgress the prohibition of seclusion, since she does not seclude herself with other men, she loses the opportunity to receive this blessing.,Rabbi Yishmael continues: If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “And she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed” (Numbers 5:28)? This means that if in the past she would give birth in pain, from then on she will give birth with ease; if she gave birth to females, she will now give birth to males; if her children were short, she will now give birth to tall children; if her children were black, she will give birth to white children.,§ The baraita in the Tosefta cited above states: The wife of a mamzer who is married to a mamzer in a permitted marriage… either drinks the bitter water or does not collect payment of her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? Since their marriage is permitted, why should the sota ritual not apply? The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that she should not drink, since if she drinks and is found to be innocent of adultery, she is permitted to her husband. This is undesirable since their offspring are also mamzerim, and we do not cause the number of individuals of flawed lineage to proliferate. The baraita in the Tosefta therefore teaches us that this is not a concern, and the wife of a mamzer is permitted to drink.,The aforementioned baraita in the Tosefta states: The wife of a convert or an emancipated slave, and a sexually underdeveloped woman can drink the bitter water. The Gemara asks with regard to the wife of a convert or an emancipated slave, who also has the status of a convert: Isn’t that obvious? Since their marriage is permitted, why should the sota ritual not apply?,The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that she does not drink, as the verse states: “Speak to the children of Israel, and say unto them: If the wife of any man goes astray, and acts unfaithfully against him” (Numbers 5:12). One might have inferred from this verse that the sota ritual applies only to those born as Jews and not to converts; the baraita in the Tosefta therefore teaches us that this is not so. The Gemara asks: Why not say that indeed the verse excludes converts? The Gemara answers: The subsequent term: “And say unto them” (Numbers 5:12) is an amplification, which serves to include converts.,§ The mishna states: The wife of a priest drinks the bitter water, and if she is found to be innocent of adultery she is permitted to her husband. The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna state: The wife of a priest drinks? Isn’t that obvious? The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that she does not drink, as the verse states: “And a man lay with her…neither was she seized” (Numbers 5:13). This indicates that if the sota was not seized she is forbidden; however, if she was seized, i.e., raped, she is permitted to her husband. And with regard to this woman, the wife of a priest, since even if she was seized she is forbidden to her husband, as a priest may not remain married to his wife if she was raped while they were married, one might say that the sota ritual does not apply to her, and she does not drink. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that she does drink.,§ The mishna states: The wife of a priest drinks, and if she is found to be innocent of adultery, she is permitted to her husband. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? Rav Huna says: The mishna is referring to a case where the woman’s health deteriorates after she drinks the bitter water, and one might have thought that she is defiled. The Gemara asks: In the case of a woman whose health deteriorates, hasn’t the bitter water already evaluated that she was unfaithful? The fact that her health deteriorates indicates that she is defiled and forbidden to her husband, and her death is delayed due to her merit in other matters.,The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a case where her health deteriorates, but not in the manner of a sota, who is afflicted in her belly and thighs (see Numbers 5:27). Rather, she is afflicted by way of other limbs. Lest you say: This woman engaged in licentious intercourse, and the fact that the bitter water did not evaluate her in the usual manner is because she engaged in licentious intercourse under duress, and with regard to a priest, even rape renders her forbidden to her to her husband, the mishna therefore teaches us that the woman’s deteriorating health does not indicate anything.,§ The mishna states: The wife of a eunuch drinks. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? Since their marriage is permitted, why should the sota ritual not apply? The Gemara replies: It is necessary lest you say that she does not drink, since the Merciful One states with regard to the sota: “But if you have gone astray while under your husband, and if you are defiled, and some man has lain with you besides your husband” (Numbers 5:20). This indicates that her husband had lain with her, and this husband, the eunuch, is not capable of that. The mishna therefore teaches us that the wife of a eunuch does drink the bitter water.,§ The mishna states: A husband can issue a warning to his wife with regard to all those with whom relations are forbidden, e.g., her father or brother. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious?'' None |
|
